Commentary on Northern Ireland

The power sharing agreement signed May 8^th in Northern Ireland between the Rev. Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionists, and Martin McGuinness, of Sinn Fein, is a huge step toward peace in a place that has been devastated by generations of bitter hatred, violence and bloodshed.

There are many reasons to suspect that the agreement will not hold. Among them;

· Each party remains committed to a political outcome that excludes the other;

· The two leaders are not co-equal in the agreement, and

· Even at the signing ceremony where Rev. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness were shaking hands with nearly everyone in the room, they didn’t shake hands with each other.

Still, this is such a huge step toward peace that it is almost universally seen as a tremendous coup for Tony Blair as he announced his resignation as the British Prime Minister.

“The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, as it has been known, has been one of the most intractable conflicts in the world. That the representatives of the most polarized parties to that conflict have been able to come together gives us reason for hope; and hope not just for other international hot spots like the Middle East and Africa, but even for our own work places, homes, and families.

Who among us has not thought, when considering a long-standing conflict with a family member or colleague at work, “That conflict just cannot be resolved.”

We may not yet see how or when a conflict may be resolved. But to say that it will not be, is to give ourselves permission to quit trying.

We can give thanks to the people of Northern Ireland that they have not quit trying.

Process Issues

Some years ago the work of Jay Rothman helped me to understand that any conflict is going to be a combination of both resource-based and identity-based issues. That is, any conflict, especially conflicts in significant relationships, will have certain aspects that are related to finite resources [time, money, attention] as well as aspects that are related to qualities in the relationship [trust, affiliation, status, respect]. This helps to explain why we sometimes seem to be making such a big deal out of such small matters as whether the toilet seat is up or down or whether the cap is back on the toothpaste tube.

In recent weeks I have been noticing a variation on the way identity issues arise in certain relationships. In some cases this variation is so striking that it may be seen to be a third set of issues. I am going to refer to this as process-based conflict.

Karen and Steve have agreed that they will be spending the kids' Spring Break at her parent’s place in Florida. They have decided that they are going to fly instead of drive. They agree that the expense will be worth the savings in time and the logistics of having three small children in a car for many hours. They have agreed that they want to spend as little money as possible. They have agreed on when they will leave and when they need to return by. They have agreed that Steve will make the arrangements by purchasing the tickets on-line.

Steve finds a great deal! They can each fly for only $200 but there is a two-hour layover in Atlanta. Karen doesn’t like that they are not flying non-stop and isn’t sure if they have to buy a ticket for the infant. She wants him to wait to make the purchase until they see if they can find answers and a better itinerary. Steve checks back the next day and finds that the special fare is gone. They can’t go for less than $300 a ticket. He is angry.

One way of looking at this conflict is that it is a combination of resource-based and identity-based issues. Steve wanted to spend less money and he thought they agreed that he was authorized to make the arrangements. Except that Karen also wants to spend less money and she wants Steve to make the arrangements. She just wants the process to include no change of flights and no purchase of a ticket they may not need. Neither of them has flown since they started having children and they are not clear about airline regulations. What they are missing is a clear process for how they will solve this problem. While the conflicts are related to resources and identity, they are more about confusion about the process for decision-making.

A similar issue came up for me very recently in a conversation with a group of folks from a local church about conflicts within the congregation. They had the usual sorts of things about whether to continue to have two services now that the membership has declined, but the more heated conflicts are coming up in their concerns about the style of the current pastor.

To be fair, they have always had conflicts with the style of the pastor, no matter who the pastor has been. That the issues seem to be larger now may be because the style issues are bigger, or they may be because the membership is declining more and the anxiety is larger, or they may be because the denomination is offering less support so they are feeling abandoned and betrayed and those feelings are spilling over onto the relationship with the pastor. In any case, they have a problem with the pastor.

And the pastor knows it. And the pastor wants to address it. It was the pastor who urged these people to attend the presentation that I was giving so that they could be encouraged to actually address the conflicts instead of hiding them. So everyone agrees that there are problems and everyone agrees that addressing the problems will be better than hiding them, but no one knows what to do about the situation. There is no process for addressing the concerns. The perceived conflict is around the absence of a process for naming the conflicts. They are searching for a way to do this that is clear, transparent, forthright, supportive, fair, honest, and faithful. That shouldn’t be too hard to do once they realize that this is what they need. What is hard is letting go of thinking that this is the pastor's fault or the denomination's fault.

So I am more and more seeing the possibility of conflicts being not only about resources and identity, but also about process; the process of decision-making but also even the process of clear and open communication.

Conflicts in churches

I had coffee this morning with Rev. Marilyn Stavenger of the faculty of Eden Theological Seminary. She is teaching a course in congregational leadership and has asked me to address the class on the issue of conflict resolution. We are both aware of how conflict phobic most pastors are and how they will often try to stay above the fray, as though the conflict was not their business or that it will go away if they just ignore it.

I was reminded as we spoke about the lessons that are coming from some other consulting that I am doing for a recent partnership that is failing. They knew going into it that they would have conflicts and that it was important to address them early and often. We even met to practice what to do when we discover conflicts. Nevertheless, the weight of the conflicts is now so great that the partnership is dissolving. I asked a couple of the partners what they have learned about what didn't work. Then separately agreed that:

• They saw the conflicts that were coming up as too small to address. They told themselves that "this isn't big enough to mess with." And when they turned around those same issues had become to big to wrestle with.
• They saw the conflicts that were coming up as about what was going on with the other and not with them. They said to themselves, "I will just give the other some time to settle down before we address this." And then they just ignored it because they didn't want to "start something."

The lesson is, address it right away and don't wait for it to blow over. It is much easier to address issues when they are fresh and small.

I will be addressing this issue more fully in the series that starts again at Eden the end of February 2007. There is a calendar of events to the right that you can follow or just click here to see more information.